Yeah, Lex, if you say so.

To sum up your last Liberal tirade ...blah, blah, and blah...the Catholic Church...blah, blah, blah.

With so much Political Ass Rimming from the last administration, ass kissing seems so tame. Monica may have sucked cock, but Don't Ask, Don't Tell was the real fucking Gays got. Do Liberals fuck any different?

I don't share your reservations about the proposed Bush budget plan. But, I will specifically mention a fact you trivalized by not addressing it at all. In Healthcare, increasing the budget in medical research for AIDS and other diseases is a step forward. Additionally, increasing the NIH budget by $2.8 billion for conducting federal medical studies (which includes AIDS) is a positive step too. If you want more specific details of the budget, you'll just have to 'read' it -- the Budget Plan.

As for the environment, I think you should make your case to the people out in California. California's self-destruct on their own self-induced energy crisis has run head on with environmental protection. Instead of Ecology 101, the people should be taking Economics 101.

Lex. Instead of getting ALL your information from just one article, you might want to do what most people do. Think for yourself. Show us some independent thinking. You don't have to live on the Liberal's plantation. You are free to think for yourself. You should avail yourself of many sources before coming to any conclusion. Coming to your conclusions first and then seeking to justify those conclusions based on Liberal hyperbole is rhetoric.

Living in New York does not have to be a bad experience even if you did vote for what's her name and you got 'him' in that sorry mix.

Though I live in NYC most of the time I vote in PA and voted for Arlen Specter, a Republican, FYI. Rcik Santorum, on the other hand, is an embarrassment.

I read widely including lots of right-leaning journals, magazines etc. I'm familiar with legal resources such as findlaw.com that present the information in a straightforward way without need for politicizing, though they accommodate plenty of political postings on their message board.

I agree that it's great that Bush is increasing funding for AIDS research, and NIH funding too. I didn't trivialize that by not mentioning it, I mentioned administration policies that concerned me, and I specifically asked someone to tell me why this Evertz guy is so qualified for this job, specifically because I only read one article. You had no new information to share about this guy, so I suppose you didn't even read the one article I read.

You have not forwarded any detailed arguments to refute my opinions other than tossing off nasty comments and suggestions. I'm interested in discussion, not mud-slinging. Can you possibly control your rhetoric enough to try and illuminate people, rather than bash your imaginary opposition?

As someone who has voted Republican on occasion, who loves our country's free market impulses and totally approves of hunting and the right to bear arms for nonlethal noncriminal uses (among other political beliefs of mine), I don't think I fit neatly into your "demon" slot, though I never thought the terms Liberal or Conservative as insults per se.

You may be more than remotely aware of the origins of the political term Liberal, so I know you won't want to fall into the trap of using that term so frequently to denigrate people. I think you really mean "socialist" or "social engineer," something like that. You'd make a great speech-writer for Dana Rohrabacher or some other proud representative of your political ideology.

Could you possibly concede that NIH funding under both republicans and democrats made possible a lot of private sector profits in AIDS medication research & development? Perhaps government health r&d with tax revenues is an area where democrats and republicans can agree. Your postings show no interest in the bipartisanship and cooperation that keeps such programs in place over many administrations, you're just blindly defending Bush's overall strategy to date. Don't YOU think for yourself? Don't YOU read more than what you agree with in advance?

I haven't defended the Clinton record - Bill or Hillary's - in any postings. I fully support and contribute to the Servicemembers' Legal Defense Fund and totally oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell as a failed policy, but I do recognize the nasty roles that Sam Nunn, Democrat, lots of Republicans, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff played in thwarting Clinton's original and flawed, grandstanding proposal to dismantle the anti-gay policies of the armed forces. I agree that Clinton set back gay rights mightily by not doing the politically smart thing by building consensus behind closed doors before announcing what he intended to do. I agree that signing the Defense of Marriage Act was reprehensible, and a permanent stain on his Presidential record.

Now would you agree that the Republican Party includes a conservative right wing, a fundamentalist Christian religious right wing, that is organized and powerful and has influenced policy and law on a local and national level for years, and that is motivated in part by a deep animosity toward gay men and women that is evident in the passage of Defense of Marriage, and local and statewide laws and initiatives throughout the country that constrain equal rights for gay men and women? Could you possibly concede that much? Or are you just a blind apologist for conservative dogg-ma?

I'd also be interest in hearing you give a little more detail than "blah blah blah Liberal blah blah" in response to my assertion that the Catholic Church's position on condom use has been a destructive counterweight to the fight against the spread of HIV. You may be aware that most Catholic Americans use condoms themselves, and that there are huge divisions within the Catholic Church, like many other established religious groups, including the clergy and laity on nearly every political issue on which the Church has taken an official stand. Why is it so-called Liberal blather for someone raised Catholic to critique the Church's role in public health policy and specifically AIDS prevention?

I'm not going to hold my breath awaiting a civilized, detailed, informed response from you. Like I said, thank god I live in NY, where Republicans and Democrats know how to have a good political argument without shooting each other. I can't believe it's come to this, that NYC is more polite and civilized than the rest of the country!

[This message has been edited by Lex (edited April 09, 2001).]

Ooooooooh!

It looks like Sunny is black and blue! LOL! Did we collectively hit a nerve, Sunny? LOL! I too am glad to be included in the esteemed company of Guyncol (the SHARPEST and BEST moderator on these boards as far as this man is concerned!), Swallow, bongo, and any of the other independent thinkers you mentioned who refuse to be fooled by your game-playing and obnoxious baiting, you asshole.

It amazes me that you have been allowed to get away with the outrageous crap that you have been pulling on these boards for so damn long, Sun. People may use different handles here at CFS for any variety of reasons. But, YOU are the only poster I know of who actually uses multiple identities IN THE SAME THREAD to engage in self-congratulatory talk with each other in order to defend your own rhetoric. JESUS!

It certainly is no mystery to me why you are so venomous towards Guyncol. He alone is the ONE moderator at CFS who read your beads to you a LOOONG time ago. He also came very close to exposing your masquerade when he went to check the IP log to reveal where several of your identities ACTUALLY came from at one time in the not too distant past. I am sure that you will NEVER forget or forgive him for that one, Sunny. Your imaginary "gay youth" identities that you ushered in to support your desire to "mentor" young boys, etc. They miraculously vanished from threads Guy was moderating when a confrontation took place. Of course, you knew that Guy would not let you get away with your baiting, phoney game-playing, and you had your "siblings" make a hasty departure.

Ass rimming? I just about puked when you trashed Guy while brown-nosing the moderator (Horndogg) of this forum for not confronting you the way that Guy did in his forums.

I wish you would get a bunch of your checker playing gin buddies and go play charades somewhere else, Sun.

Your welcome here has worn REAL thin with quite a few people besides this man.

From Sun:
>>Horndog ~
I will apolgise for the fact that Jake2001 and others have suggested you and I are the same person. Owing to the fact that Bongo has admitted he posts as others, I would not expect anything to the contrary. You've been very tolerant, unbiased, and neutral in this forum. My thanks to you. >>

LOL...Nice try, Sun. The difference is that I have a different screen name only for cruising. When I erroneoulsy used it in this forum, I immediately identified myself. You, as Jake has said above (and others of us have said for months), don´t identify your various handles, all of which are created to confuse people, create false concensus and even to gratify your fantasies.

As Jake said, your real objections to Guy are that he called you on this months ago and, ever since, you have been at least cautious about which handles you use in THAT forum. I think it´s too bad Horndogg doesn´t give as much attention to matters of such integrity and their effect on discourse as he does to his incoherently applied policy of "name calling."

[This message has been edited by bongo (edited April 10, 2001).]

From Sun, who doesn´t call people names or sling mud, to Lex:

>>Instead of getting ALL your information from just one article, you might want to do what most people do. Think for yourself. Show us some independent thinking. You don't have to live on the Liberal's plantation. You are free to think for yourself. You should avail yourself of many sources before coming to any conclusion >>

Hahahahahahah. Anyone here can point his browser at a libertarian site and find that ¨"independent thinking" Sun´s words are often virtual paraphrases of that canned ideology. Honestly, Sun, you neither think for yourself, nor do you even engage in discourse. YOu did not in any way respond to the challenge above to your grotesquely weird posturing about Sex Panic and the agendas this board shares with radical sexual liberation movements. When cornered, you never do anything but turn a few degrees, wind yourself up and let loose (after a bit of the invective you claim to despise) with another one of your libertarian tirades.

And by the way, show us the actual increases in the AIDS research budget. You already pulled that one through one of your bogus handles and I challenged you then to give us the actual facts.

Lex: Groovy posts but you're probably wasting your breath if you think Sun is going to reply in any substantial way. Under the Immoderator`s Code of Etiquette it's okay to dismiss someone with "blah blah blah" or characterize them as "neo-Marxist" but not okay to, um, call them names. Perhaps, one day, Horndoggy will address this odd policy.

from Sun, to me:
>>The reason why we have a Sexual Politics Forum is because we no longer need to post in the Sex Advice Forum. The moderator of this forum, unlike the moderator for the 'other' forum, does not censure our postings to silence unpopular disent and disagreement with 'his' point of view. The moderator of this forum has been very fair and has not attempted to silence us. >>

Um, where have you been? He has deleted posts, locked threads and generally attempted to redirect conversation when it took natural turns toward different subjects. Are you really present, Sun? Do you have ANY interest in reality? I¨m beginning to think you really ARE a south Fla. senior citizen, half-asleep with early Alzheimer´s, a libertarian brochure on your lap. Yo! What color are you today? Yo! Who´s that kid you´re mentoring! YO!

By the way, it´s a matter of record that Bush was going to close Sandy Thurman's AIDS office. I`m glad he's had second thoughts but I seriously doubt it´ll amount to more than an empty gesture.
______________

Sorry for the multiple postings...I don´t have access throghout the day to the internet. I¨m in Europe for a month, where I might add, anti-American sentiment seems at a record high in recent years.

The Christian right may claim they "own" George Bush but they are locked in. There's nowhere for them to go. Bush is in trouble these days! His approval numbers are going down and his disapproval numbers are going up. He has to find support among constituencies that have not supported him him the past.

It sounds like the Bush administration found out that there are moe right wing gays than they thought there were. This information comes from polls and surveys, even though Bush denies using them. Apparently the right wing is not monolithic.

Still, I hear that right wingers want to amend the pledge of allegiance to read: "one nation, heterosexual, Engish-speaking, with liberty and justice for those who can afford it."

Hope you're having a great time in Europe, Bongo!

Sundogg~

WHAT-ever. As if. Talk to the hand.

now that i'm thru emulating your glib dismissiveness, if you will remember (your memory has always been selective, granted)that during the looong Bush V.Gore thread that thrived throughout the election fiasco, i repeeatedly said i thought Clinton's handling of Don't Ask Don't Tell to be ham-handed, and that he tended to shoot himself in the foot everytime he did something productive. I was pissed at him more than most conservatives, because he put Democrats in the position of having to defend some of his indefensible actions.

Clinton's out of office now; he can never darken your little doorstep again. how about revealing some reasons why I or any other Gay person should support Dubya's policies instead of going back to the bugaboos of the past.

betcha can't....maybe one of your other personae can help you out.

[This message has been edited by swallowme (edited April 10, 2001).]

The games are clearly over, Sun.

You have been called on the carpet by several INDIVIDUALS here who see right through your baiting and your masquerades.

Time to pack your bags and go play "genius" somewhere else. Your pretentious, smug superiority cannot hide the truth. You have used these message boards, by your own admission, to play cat & mouse games with people who were trying to make genuine contributions.

It was inevitable that such obnoxious game-playing would result in alienating people from you.

This has NOT been fun.

Swallow:
>>Sundogg~
WHAT-ever. As if. Talk to the hand. >>

Dewd!

Jake:
>>The games are clearly over, Sun.
You have been called on the carpet by several INDIVIDUALS here who see right >>
through your baiting and your masquerades.>>

If only. This has happened numerous times. People get fed up, Sun goes to sleep for a while, or resurrects himself under a new handle, and then comes out foaming at the mouth again, brandishing a pistol that he inevitably fires at his own foot.

Lex:
>>Hope you're having a great time in Europe, Bongo!>>

These southern Europeans have no shame, no decency, no morals, no self-restraint. God, I love them.




[This message has been edited by bongo (edited April 11, 2001).]

I am looking to improve my understanding of an issue raised here, namely, that the queer left regards ordinary gays with disdain. Several posters have defended the right of "ordinary" gays to live quiet, unassuming, normal lives. We are told that the queer left despises ordinary gays and advocates a radical and confrontational lifestyle.

Can somebody direct my research here? I've read some queer theory and I know about the calls for confrontation. But I don't believe that radical queers despise ordinary people. (If they do, they shouldn't!)

Can anyone supply me the name of a writer who illuminates this topic? I am looking for information --it doesn't have to be the final word. (Resolved: that gays already fit in, but radical leftists are stirring things up for the sake of their own individual careers)

Well, I'm not qualified enough in Queer Studies to be abel to refer you to anyone in particular. but i do want to point out that though by the skewed standards used as a reference point today, I would be considered to the left of center. however, the consensus has been pushed further and further to the right since WWII.(need I remind anyone that the U.S. was thisclose to revolution/socialism at the height of the Great Depression, with only FDR's(AND Eleanor's)skill enabling us to avoid bloody class warfare?)so what is now considered left by the media is in fact pretty centrists when viewed in a global political perspective.

and I AM ordinary! I work 10 hour days, 6 days a week, and still scrape by trying to keep up a house that my now deceased partnere and I bought when we were a 2 income household. but I digress. the point being, just because someone is liberal or left does NOT make them "un-ordinary".

Posted by Dwight:
"Can somebody direct my research here? I've read some queer theory and I know about the calls for confrontation. But I don't believe that radical queers despise ordinary people. (If they do, they shouldn't!)

Can anyone supply me the name of a writer who illuminates this topic?"

Michael Warner's "THE TROUBLE WITH NORMAL" and Michael Bronski's "THE PLEASURE PRINCIPLE."

Dwight: The idea that "radical" gays (like members of Sex Panic, who essentially advocate nothing more than this board advocates)despise¨"ordinary" gays is just classist argumentation. Sun might as well be talking about a "queer moral majority." It´s a polemical fiction.

I second Warner´s and Bronski´s books, though I think Warner´s is better and certainly more grounded in queer theory. Warner is an important queer theorist because he attempts to reconcile queer theory´s disassembly of identity to the very real-life need for political action.

I´ll try to explain. Queer theory -- a la Judith Butler and Eve SEdgwick -- argues that gender and sexual identity are cultural expressions of performativity, the reiteration of certain markers (like dress, gesture, etc.). QT wants to sabotage those gestures, or in the pomo spirit, to displace them, to¨"play" in the Derridean sense, if you know his work.

This is the difference in¨"queer" and "gay". Queer plays with gender and identity, whereas gay is a pretty fixed identity based on the assumption that sexual orientation is stable, likely biologically programmed. One common expression of the problem this difference causes is when gay people argue that trangendered and bisexual people should not be included in "their" movement. To "queers," anyone playing with gender and orientation is welcome, including straight people (and, frankly, I meet a lot queerer straight people than gay people often times these days).

Of course, if you destabilize gay identity, you likewise make it very difficult to form a cohesive political movement. Warner attempts in his work to address this problem.

The idea that "queer theory" is some kind of politically radical gobbledegook is bullshit. It´s difficult because it is rather radical in the way it contextualizes gender and sex and has had to create a new vocabulary to express the novelty of its ideas. Some of Warner´s most interesting comments are on the way queer theory is excluded by current media. This, he says, is because it really has the potential to make a big differnce in the way we see ourselves -- meaning,f or one thing, that we might begin to realize "gay" has become basically a marketing word. Gay media are not going to jeopardize their position by questioning identity-based politics.

Short course.